Suspected shoplifter dies after being detained at California Walmart

[Fraggle Rocker]

But I think that violence has its place and cannot always be labeled as wrong or negative.

Violence is only justified in self-defense, and even that justification can be mitigated. If someone says he intends to harm you and starts chasing you, if you have no other option you can stop and fight. But if you're on a sidewalk full of people you can yell, "help," and (depending on how civilized the place is) a couple of people will come forward to let him know that if he does not desist, the three of you will easily overpower him and turn him over to the police, while inflicting minimal personal injury. Obviously this will not always work, but it illustrates my point that violence is not always the only way to respond to violence.

If you live in a country whose leaders tell you that the people in some other country want to conquer you and therefore you must join a military organization, learn how to use a gun, and travel to the other country and start killing them, in 99% of cases your leaders are at best exaggerating and at worst enlisting you fraudulently in a nefarious plot of their own that has nothing at all to do with your own welfare. In this case your best strategy is to emigrate rather than escalating the violence.

He had stolen goods (If they were not paid for- they are stolen) . . . .

"Stealing" requires intent. People walk out of stores every day with goods they did not pay for, due to absentmindness, confusion, a cranky child, someone in the store frightening them, or sudden realization that they left a pot on the stove at home. There was no intent.

If he was feeling a heart attack come on, he did not run to the front counter and request an ambulance.

Very few people respond calmly and rationally to a heart attack. Especially since the symptoms are not always recognizable. Sometimes they just have an overwhelming urge to go out into the sunshine and fresh air.

Why did he not go to the front desk and request paramedics- immediately? Why did he flee the store, running to his car with a cart full of unpaid merchandise?

The next time you have a heart attack in a public place, please report back to us and let us know how rationally you behaved. It is a shock to your nervous system, and shock can make you completely irrational.

Why did he flee with a cart of unpaid goods out of the store and run to his car instead of asking for help inside of the store?

You keep asking the same question. People do seemingly dumb things like that every day, and there are a zillion reasons for it. I have, and I'm sure you have. If it didn't put us in a position that looked like we were committing crimes, then we were just lucky.

Some arguments presented make it really sound like cops are expected to just Back away and allow a violent man to either run off or do whatever he wants, so as to take care to not harm him.

As I said in the thread about George May-He-Rot-In-Hell Zimmerman, cops are trained to quickly understand situations like this and make quick decisions that minimize the possibility of an unfortunate outcome. Rent-a-cops are not so well trained. Retail employees are not trained at all.

This is why they should just follow at a safe distance while reporting back to their own management or the police on a cellphone. If he drives off, get his license number.

If someone breaks a window in your house, climbs in while you're eating dinner with your family, frightens your children, kicks your dog out of the way, and tries to walk out with a $50,000 dollar painting that has sentimental value, no insurance company will cover it, and you can't afford to replace it, he has violated your personal dwelling, caused harm to your family, and is intent on causing you major financial harm. In this case you may feel justified in shooting him. As a pacifist I might not do the same, but at least I won't berate you for your decision.

But shoplifting from a department store? It's a public place, he's not violating anyone's privacy. It's strictly an economic crime and even if he gets away with it it's only a blip on the company's annual report. He should certainly be apprehended and if you have to put him in a painful hammerlock or simply trip him so he falls down on the floor and gets a headache, that's reasonable. But it's not a capital crime and to kill him for it is not civilized.

 

[Neverfly]

Violence is only justified in self-defense, and even that justification can be mitigated. If someone says he intends to harm you and starts chasing you, if you have no other option you can stop and fight. But if you're on a sidewalk full of people you can yell, "help," and (depending on how civilized the place is) a couple of people will come forward to let him know that if he does not desist, the three of you will easily overpower him and turn him over to the police, while inflicting minimal personal injury. Obviously this will not always work, but it illustrates my point that violence is not always the only way to respond to violence.

Always or not- It has it's place. I cannot think of anything, off hand, that always applies. Either positive or negative.

There was no intent.

In this case, none of us know if he had intent or not.

cops are trained to quickly understand situations like this and make quick decisions that minimize the possibility of an unfortunate outcome. Rent-a-cops are not so well trained. Retail employees are not trained at all.

THis is a good point.
And I agree- they did the best they knew how to do. It's NOT a case of beating some man into the ground, apparently.

This is why they should just follow at a safe distance while reporting back to their own management or the police on a cellphone. If he drives off, get his license number.

That's one option. But it's not WRONG to chase a man whose committing a crime down and detain, him either. In fact, in many cases, it's a very good thing that they did.
In this case- it was more tragic. None of them are in a position to win Randi's Million dollars.
They made a judgment call and sure- after the fact, people can use hindsight a plenty.

If someone breaks a window in your house, climbs in while you're eating dinner with your family, frightens your children, kicks your dog out of the way, and tries to walk out with a $50,000 dollar painting that has sentimental value, no insurance company will cover it, and you can't afford to replace it, he has violated your personal dwelling, caused harm to your family, and is intent on causing you major financial harm. In this case you may feel justified in shooting him. As a pacifist I might not do the same, but at least I won't berate you for your decision.

I'm glad we agree on this because, painting be damned, if he goes near my kid, he's a goner. Sometimes, you take no chances and assume the worst when a man puts himself in that position, EH?

Bold Mine:

But shoplifting from a department store? It's a public place, he's not violating anyone's privacy. It's strictly an economic crime and even if he gets away with it it's only a blip on the company's annual report. He should certainly be apprehended and if you have to put him in a painful hammerlock or simply trip him so he falls down on the floor and gets a headache, that's reasonable. But it's not a capital crime and to kill him for it is not civilized.

They did not commit a capitol Crime Fraggle Rocker. What you put in that sentence and I put in bold, I find very, very interesting.
In fact, we're not sure if he tripped or was tackled.
They did not go and Kill the man. What killed him may have killed him. We cannot say at this time if they even contributed to the circumstances and we may never be able to.

 

[Trippy]

I disagree- Stated a general opinion and Also Said It's Too Early to tell on This Case- three times.
My general opinion got lambasted and turned into a word brawl that extended well past the topic.

Yes, you stated that it was too early to tell.
You even stated that the staff involved should have the curtosey of "Innocent until proven guilty".
But at no point did you extend that to the alleged shoplifter, and I seem to recall you reacting adversely when someone suggested that it should be.

Personally, I do not have a problem with violence. many may find that offensive... But I think that violence has its place and cannot always be labeled as wrong or negative.

Personally, I believe that violence should only ever be an absolute last resort.

But then, people who know me in person generally lable me as being one of the most passive people I know.

My point, which you seem to have missed is that neccessary force does not imply the use of violence.

Akaido as well. But most people don't have that kind of training and can only respond in a primitive way.

I don't recall suggesting they did, or should.

Can they have been expected to do otherwise? A lot of guys claim a lot of things when being tackled by cops or security!

Until they are detained and in a more controlled environment, people cannot assume much of anything except "He's trying to get away."

Yes, they reasonably can.

Detaining someone does not neccessitate restraining someone, only removing their means of escape.

An equally valid result would have been to offer assistance "Okay, we can help you, but only if you let us look after the trolley for you." Assuming he was trying to get to a vehicle, removing the trolley and retaining his car keys after unlocking his door for him would have sufficed as detentionm allowed him to get any medication he may have been seeking and perhaps even prevented his death.

Until they are detained and in a more controlled environment, people cannot assume much of anything except "He's trying to get away."Is this not what police do? Detain, get control and then investigate? You DID say you are in law enforcement, correct?
So tell us- do cops let people get away or run when they say something? Or do they seize control?[/quote]
I don't recall suggesting they should let him runaway. This is a non-sequitere based on a reductio ad absurdum, which you have used to setup a strawman hypothesis.

At no point have I stated or implied that he should neccessarily have been allowed to walk free.

And remember- these are not even cops with training.

Precisely. They didn't even have WalMart Security officer training, and apparently were unaware of Walmart Policy when it comes to circumstances such as these.

Additionally, it was only a matter of seconds.

Why did you bold this? It seems un-neccessary.

But to address your point. What is your point? Maybe it's a function of intelligence and the fact that I am smarter than something like 99% of the population, but in the one or two seconds in which I had to respond to being assaulted from behind, I was able two weigh up three seperate scenarios, evaluate their likely outcomes, and take the most appropriate course of action.

And they pursued- but there is nothing wrong with that.

I don't recall stating or implying that there was.

He had stolen goods (If they were not paid for- they are stolen) outside of the store and was fleeing on foot.

Theft requires demonstration of mens rea. There is no information that has been made available which unequivicaly demonstrates mens rea, and some information that suggests it was absent entirely.

Can they be blamed? I think not.

Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that you think that the actions (which violated company policy) of the staff members (that had no training in security) were blameless.

My point, which you're either ignoring, or have not understood, is that these staff members who had no training, were acting outside company policy, and had other reasonable courses of action available to them, assumed they were dealing with a criminal and treated him accordingly.

You can contribute to the death of another inadvertently no matter how well you try to handle a situation. They MAY have contributed. But the man seemed to know something was wrong and there's no telling that nothing they could have done would have prevented it.

Right, but the point is that they made the conscious choice not to even try to render assistance, instead, they judged him as guilty of shoplifting, and acted according to that judgement, rather than trying to render assistance and ascertain the facts of the matter.

If he was feeling a heart attack come on, he did not run to the front counter and request an ambulance.
He ran out to his car. With stolen goods.

I've addressed this point already.

Perhaps he had been warned that if he observed certain symptoms, he had on average so much time to take a particular medication, and simply did not think that an ambulance would be able to make it in time to help him. So he made a beeline for his car, and his medication.

He may have contributed to his death... But it may have been a certain thing no matter what they did.

A point which I have already explicitly acknowledged and raised with you in a previous post, remember?

We do not yet know enough at this time. We cannot say with any certainty that they caused his death or even- contributed to it.

What's your point here?

You appear to be attempting to contradict me, and yet all you've done is restate what I have said in previous posts (in fact, in the post you're replying to. Did you not read the post in its entirety before you replied?

He made a claim half-way through Crime Prevention. Could it really be taken seriously in the matter of seconds that they had?

A crime prevention that was being undertaken by staff with no training, and seemingly acting outside company policy.

But yes, it should absolutely have been taken seriously.

Why did he not go to the front desk and request paramedics- immediately? Why did he flee the store, running to his car with a cart full of unpaid merchandise?
Hey- call me crazy but- I think this is a very valid question.

Some people might be tempted to suggest you're being intellectually dishonest here, after all, I raised this very point in my first post in this thread.

I have already explicitly addressed this point. You can go back to my original post, or the restatement I made of it 12 or so hours ago.

He very much acted the part and they can hardly be blamed for that assumption.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be held accountable for their assumptions, no mater how justified they might seem at the time?

Are you not wanting Bells to be held accountable for what appear to be her assumptions about you?

Which is it?

I think this line plays heavily into the argument between Bells and I.
Now- watch Bells or I justify our perceptions.

In making this statement, you miss the point that was being made.

Fact is, the WalMart employees can hardly be blamed for seeing a man flee with stolen merchandise and put as a priority that it was his intent to steal- while he was fleeing- and try to prevent his getting away.

Yes they can, and they should, especially when they are acting outside of company policy and have had no training in what they were doing.

A more appropriate course of action would have been to follow him to his vehicle and record is liscence plate number. That combined with the security camera footage would have provided police with all of the evidence they required to ensure that justice was served.

Now that the alleged shoplifter is dead, justice can not be served, because he has no capacity to defend himself in a court of law, which is the whole point of the justice system - to give alleged criminals the opportunity to defend and justify their actions.

You nor I nor anyone else in this thread KNOWS that.

I don't recall having claimed to know anything, above and beyond what has been reported in the media.

They could not have known what moment the police would arrive- they knew to detain- You are being Unreasonable at this point.

No i'm not. Detention does not neccessitate restraint. There was a far more reasonable course of action available to them which might have prevented the death.

Perhaps, but a man fleeing with stolen goods still looks like a man fleeing with stolen goods.
Whether he had intent to steal or not has yet to be established, trippy- yet you are seeming to have already decided he was not intending to steal.

Again. Some might construe this as intellectual dishonesty, or perhaps an attempt at inciting a flamewar.

I am doing two things.
The first thing I am doing is not making any assumption about the facts of the matter, including assuming mens rea on behalf of the alleged shoplifter.
The second thing I am doing is arguing a counterpoint by pointing out an alternative set of events which fits the available information as well as your assertions do.

You cannot answer the question- but it remains valid- Why did he flee with a cart of unpaid goods out of the store and run to his car instead of asking for help inside of the store?

I can answer that question, have answered that question, and even addressed that point in my initial post.

Yes.
But if he were to Violently attack them, they also have the right to injure him in self defense.

They have the right to subdue and to use neccessary force, which is not the same thing.

Yes, but they first gain CONTROL of the situation. They detain first, then call for medical help if needed. They put the safety of others in the area and will deal with the violence at hand, First.

Gaining control of the situation does not neccessitate the use of violence, neither does protecting the safety of others.

What it does require is keeping a cool head and a keen mind to accurately assess the situation and determine what is neccessary.

Many criminals even cause more injury to themselves during their thrashing, which gets ignored until he is subdued.

Yes. And?

Some arguments presented make it really sound like cops are expected to just Back away and allow a violent man to either run off or do whatever he wants, so as to take care to not harm him.

Bullocks.

This is a non-sequiter based on an argumentum ad absurdum, leading to a strawman hypothesis.

No.
If he must be harmed to stop his violence- he gets harmed.

Yes.
But that still doesn't mean that we do not detain individuals caught in the act.

All of this misses the point, and fails to address what has actually been said. Why? Because it addresses the strawman hypothesis you have formulated, rather than the argument actually being presented.

 

[Gustav]

He should certainly be apprehended and if you have to put him in a painful hammerlock or simply trip him so he falls down on the floor and gets a headache, that's reasonable.

expected outcomes are just that, expected but not guaranteed
i am shocked....very shocked, that you are willing to take that risk
it indicates a degree of callousness towards life and limb

ever seen the final destination movies where ordinary events turn into life threatening ones?

/smirk

 

[Neverfly]

Yes, you stated that it was too early to tell.
You even stated that the staff involved should have the curtosey of "Innocent until proven guilty".
But at no point did you extend that to the alleged shoplifter, and I seem to recall you reacting adversely when someone suggested that it should be.

I jumped the gun and assumed too much.

My point, which you seem to have missed is that neccessary force does not imply the use of violence.

It does not always lack it either. Let's be blunt- You're more of a pacifist than I am. That's fine. I believe that violence can be a positive thing and has it's place. I don't expect agreement from some people on that- But I would expect the courtesy to not get accused of far worse things I've never said over it.

I don't recall suggesting they did, or should.

You did not.
However, my point was that since most people are not highly trained Akaido masters, you will need to tolerate more primitive forms of violence when people defend themselves.

Yes, they reasonably can.

Detaining someone does not neccessitate restraining someone, only removing their means of escape.

According to the reported events, they had just gotten him to the ground when the police arrived.
We are unsure if he fell on his own or was tackled.
This means: They had no time for all that fluff you just offered- this was a matter of SECONDS. They had just reached him when Covina PD arrived.

I don't recall suggesting they should let him runaway. This is a non-sequitere based on a reductio ad absurdum, which you have used to setup a strawman hypothesis.

Let me clarify: If they must step back- disengage etc- yes, they are letting him get away. This WAS advocated. You are citing fallacies not being used. Non sequitur- "It does not follow." Yes , if the advocated response is to disengage- it is allowing a fleeing person to run away. Reductio - ad absurdm and strawman hypothesis are irrelevant as this has been known- we do not have first hand knowledge of the incident. As for strawmen- see the last comment on this post.

Precisely. They didn't even have WalMart Security officer training, and apparently were unaware of Walmart Policy when it comes to circumstances such as these.

Possibly, we're not sure of how much they knew about Policy. The policy does allow for self defense, according to Gee.
It may not apply in this case.

Why did you bold this? It seems un-neccessary.

Apparently it was necessary as I've had to repeat that only a matter of seconds was available above- after you read the bolded bit, eh?

But to address your point. What is your point? Maybe it's a function of intelligence and the fact that I am smarter than something like 99% of the population, but in the one or two seconds in which I had to respond to being assaulted from behind, I was able two weigh up three seperate scenarios, evaluate their likely outcomes, and take the most appropriate course of action.

You are, if law enforcement- Trained. What you just described was not conscious thought but instilled training.

Are you saying you consciously thought up three things in less than a Second Trippy?

Theft requires demonstration of mens rea. There is no information that has been made available which unequivicaly demonstrates mens rea, and some information that suggests it was absent entirely.

Irrelevant to the time they had to react. That was detaining- not a court of law. Detaining for questioning does not require mens rea, not an alibi or anything of the kind. If you are observed to be engaging in the possible crime, could be about to commit a crime or could have just committed a crime, you can be detained and questioned. It's called Probable Cause.

Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that you think that the actions (which violated company policy) of the staff members (that had no training in security) were blameless.

Thanks, glad I was clear.
Because the Policy mentions Disengaging - however, these guys had pursued and caught up to- they had engaged at the time of Covina Police arrival. That matter of seconds I bolded above applies here.

assumed they were dealing with a criminal and treated him accordingly.

He fled the store with unpaid for products- Probable Cause.

Right, but the point is that they made the conscious choice not to even try to render assistance, instead, they judged him as guilty of shoplifting, and acted according to that judgement, rather than trying to render assistance and ascertain the facts of the matter.

Matter of Unnecessary bolding goes here.
Matter of Seconds and probable cause.

Perhaps he had been warned that if he observed certain symptoms, he had on average so much time to take a particular medication, and simply did not think that an ambulance would be able to make it in time to help him. So he made a beeline for his car, and his medication.

I'm no doctor but...
I've never heard of any medication like that.
Now, with heart medication, it is possible that it can help to alleviate or even prevent a heart attack in time. But it seems more likely that someone in cardiac arrest would demand attention and beg someone to run to his car for him. He was not alone- He had two friends with him.

What's your point here?

You appear to be attempting to contradict me, and yet all you've done is restate what I have said in previous posts (in fact, in the post you're replying to. Did you not read the post in its entirety before you replied?

You had said they contributed to his death. You repeatedly say they had plenty of Other Options before them. What I've read is that you think that had they not interfered, he would still be alive.
My point is that you do not know that.

Some people might be tempted to suggest you're being intellectually dishonest here, after all, I raised this very point in my first post in this thread.

Just because you threw out a speculation doesn't mean the question's been answered. That hardly is worth that temptation, Trippy- you're scraping the bottom of the barrel on that one.

Are you not wanting Bells to be held accountable for what appear to be her assumptions about you?

Bells accountability pertains to how she aggressively makes far fetched assumptions. In the case of WalMart- their assumptions were reasonable- a Man Fled With Unpaid For Goods. That happened. All the rhetoric in the world won't change that.

My wording did NOT imply the death penalty was inflicted considering that you nor Bells have any idea if those guys even played any role in that mans death- truly.
Think about it- The time it would have taken for him to DIGEST A PILL wouldn't have saved him if he was in that much distress at that time. That bolded bit about a matter of seconds goes here.

A more appropriate course of action would have been to follow him to his vehicle and record is liscence plate number. That combined with the security camera footage would have provided police with all of the evidence they required to ensure that justice was served.

Hindsight is 20/20 for untrained employees, eh?

Again. Some might construe this as intellectual dishonesty, or perhaps an attempt at inciting a flamewar.

Bull crap.
When I speculated that he was entirely innocent of theft- you said, "Very Good!"
I said it seems to me, You're overreaching to say that I'm being dishonest or trying to flame and you know it.

This is a non-sequiter based on an argumentum ad absurdum, leading to a strawman hypothesis.

All of this misses the point, and fails to address what has actually been said. Why? Because it addresses the strawman hypothesis you have formulated, rather than the argument actually being presented.

Pot, meet kettle. All your speculations about force, alternatives and innocence by means of a medical panic are straw men by the grounds you're using them by; after all, you admit you do not know any more facts than any of the rest of us, right? So, if you're trying to claim I'm running with a strawman, you are equally as guilty.

 

[Gustav]

are physical apprehensions the purview of loss prevention or management and not rank and file?

i think so

 

[Neverfly]

are physical apprehensions the purview of loss prevention or management and not rank and file?

i think so

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/press_release/10552890/wal-mart-shrink-on-the-rise

 

[Trippy]

I jumped the gun and assumed too much.

Correct. My point is made.

It does not always lack it either. Let's be blunt- You're more of a pacifist than I am. That's fine. I believe that violence can be a positive thing and has it's place. I don't expect agreement from some people on that- But I would expect the courtesy to not get accused of far worse things I've never said over it.

By pursuing this, you demonstrate - at least to me, that you still haven't understoof the point being made.

The truth of the matter is you have no evidence to suggest that I am any more of a pacifist than you are, only that I am less ready to injure another than you are.

You did not.
However, my point was that since most people are not highly trained Akaido masters, you will need to tolerate more primitive forms of violence when people defend themselves.

You don't have to be a highly trained Akaido master to understand how to block a punch, or for that matter, to understand that under most circumstances responding to a punch with a punch is only going to inflame matters further.

According to the reported events, they had just gotten him to the ground when the police arrived.
We are unsure if he fell on his own or was tackled.
This means: They had no time for all that fluff you just offered- this was a matter of SECONDS. They had just reached him when Covina PD arrived.

Bullocks.

How long does it take to say "Can we help you?", or for that matter "Leave the trolley and we'll give you a hand"?

Let me clarify: If they must step back- disengage etc- yes, they are letting him get away. This WAS advocated.

No, what was pointed out was that company policy dictates that under some circumstances they are to disengage. Besides, the only thing that is needed for an arrest is the camera footage and the plate number.

Possibly, we're not sure of how much they knew about Policy. The policy does allow for self defense, according to Gee.
It may not apply in this case.

Every job I have ever had, an employees first duty is to familiarize themselves with company policy.

Apparently it was necessary as I've had to repeat that only a matter of seconds was available above- after you read the bolded bit, eh?

Antagonism, after having spent how many pages complaining about being antagonized?

You are, if law enforcement- Trained.

I said I was in law enforcement, I didn't say I was a police officer.

What you just described was not conscious thought but instilled training.

Are you saying you consciously thought up three things in less than a Second Trippy?

Putting words in my mouth after having spent how many pages complaining about Bells putting words in your mouth? Especially after having a go at me lastnight about it?

Really.

What I said was that "In the one or two seconds I had available to me to respond, I assessed three scenarios and their likely outcomes".

Irrelevant to the time they had to react...
...That matter of seconds I bolded above applies here...
...Matter of Unnecessary bolding goes here....
...Matter of Seconds and probable cause....

Repeating this assertion does nothing to strengthen your argument.

Meanwhile, it's more antagonism, all based on a strawman hypothesis, which itself is based on an argument from ignorance. You can't believe that somebody can think "Hey, maybe he's right" then call out "Leave the trolley and let us help" in a matter of a few seconds, therefore because you can not imagine it happening, it can not happen. Incidentally? I don't recall having seen anything that suggested that it was a matter of "one or two seconds", and some things to suggest that it may have been tens of seconds.

Clearly enough time had elapsed for the police to respond to the call-out. Now, while I don't know enough about the local geography to be be able to say anything definitive, what I do know is that in Orange County, the quickest (average, using 2006 data) response time is 2:36, and the slowest is 9:12.

So to argue that they only had seconds available to them seems misleading to me.

I'm no doctor but...
I've never heard of any medication like that.

I'm no doctor either, but at least I can think of a couple of relevant examples
Epipen.
Anaphylaxis
Angina treated with a vasdilator (eg nitro spray).
My personal favourite (although not relevant aside from illustrating my pont further): Vasa previa.
Vasia previa is my personal favourite because I have had personal experience with it. My wife was diagnosed with it, and we were told that if she started bleeding we had about two minutes to get her to the hospital (they weren't sure if it was her vein, or babies vein). I got woken up at 4am one morning by my wife screaming in panic, and wound up doing 130-150 kph through a 50kph zone because I knew that by the time the ambulance got her to hospital it could be too late, however, at that stage there would still have been a chance for an emergency c-section which might have saved babies life.

Let me tell you, if red blue lights had flashed me from behind, I would not have stopped for them, and I certainly would not have stopped to explain the situation to the police officer once I got to the hospital. Not until I got my wife up to the maternity ward at any rate.

But again, here we're dealing with your lack of imagination, rather than reality.

Now, with heart medication, it is possible that it can help to alleviate or even prevent a heart attack in time. But it seems more likely that someone in cardiac arrest would demand attention and beg someone to run to his car for him. He was not alone- He had two friends with him.

That's your opinion, it's not reality.

You had said they contributed to his death.

No I didn't. Again, you're being dishonest and putting words in my mouth, the very same things that you have just spent how many pages complaining about Bells doing to you?

I did not state it as a fact, I suggested the possibility. I made it quite clear "These two factors APPEAR to have resulted in or CONTRIBUTED TO" his death. I then went on to say: "Of course, having said that, there are no certainties, and under different circumstances, someone might have come out to find a body in the parking lot, and we'd be discussing a different headline." And subsequently, to the best of my recollection have always included the qualifier "appears to have". I've been quite clear through this, and very specific with my language. At least, I have attempted to be, so for you to claim this smacks of dishonesty.

You repeatedly say they had plenty of Other Options before them. What I've read is that you think that had they not interfered, he would still be alive.

No, that's not what I suggested. The most I have suggested is that he might still be alive if they had not prevented him from reaching his car. A subtle, but important difference, which you thus far have failed to grasp. As illustrated with your next comment.

My point is that you do not know that.

I haven't claimed to know anything, the only thing I have done is point out a possibile explanation which had not (as far as I was aware at the time at least) been addressed, that as it turns out, was equally, or more consistent with evidence that subsequently became available.

Just because you threw out a speculation doesn't mean the question's been answered. That hardly is worth that temptation, Trippy- you're scraping the bottom of the barrel on that one.

You claimed it hadn't been answered.
I had previously specifcaly addressed the point, by pointing out a set or circumstances by which it might reasonably occur.
Therefore an answer to your question had previously been provided and your claim that it was unanswered was demonstrably false.

Bells accountability pertains to how she aggressively makes far fetched assumptions. In the case of WalMart- their assumptions were reasonable- a Man Fled With Unpaid For Goods. That happened. All the rhetoric in the world won't change that.

You're missing the point that I was making.

My wording did NOT imply the death penalty was inflicted considering that you nor Bells have any idea if those guys even played any role in that mans death- truly.
Think about it- The time it would have taken for him to DIGEST A PILL wouldn't have saved him if he was in that much distress at that time. That bolded bit about a matter of seconds goes here.

You're aware that not all medicines require being digested. Some are absorbed directly into the bloodstream through the lungs, or by injection?

Hindsight is 20/20 for untrained employees, eh?

What's your point here?

I've worked in a chainstore, on the shop floor, and as far as stock shrinkage goes, we were told that if we saw anything, not to confront the individual directly, but to let a manager or security officer know. They're the ones that have the training to handle the situation, and get paid to take the risks.

Bull crap.
When I speculated that he was entirely innocent of theft- you said, "Very Good!"
I said it seems to me, You're overreaching to say that I'm being dishonest or trying to flame and you know it.

Correct.

I congratulated you for apparently understanding the point being made. In the portion you are responding to, however, I was berating you for making an assertion that was demonstrably false according to the information you had at the time.

Pot, meet kettle. All your speculations about force, alternatives and innocence by means of a medical panic are straw men by the grounds you're using them by; after all, you admit you do not know any more facts than any of the rest of us, right? So, if you're trying to claim I'm running with a strawman, you are equally as guilty.

Do you understand what a strawman hypothesis is?

The most I have stated is that there may not have been a need to physically restrain him, that detaining him at his vehicle to enable him to access it without leaving the premisis may have been sufficient to meet the staffs needs as well as the alleged shoplifters needs.

This is not the same as suggesting that he should not have been detained, and is a far cry from suggesting that individuals caught in the act of committing a crime shoul not be detained.

So your response: "But that still doesn't mean that we do not detain individuals caught in the act." is addressing a strawman hypothesis, because not only is not what I actually said, but it's also not implied by anything I have said so far.

Meanwhile, all I have done is forward the hypothesis that the alleged shoplifters actions were innocent, and misinterpreted by the WalMart staff, who were acting according to their perceptions, which were being influenced by their assumptions. And the most I have said about their assumptions is that, regardless of how reaonable they may have been, they may have been mistaken.

None of which even remotely suggests that "we do not detain individuals caught in the act."

Do you understand now?

 

[Trippy]

are physical apprehensions the purview of loss prevention or management and not rank and file?

i think so

In my experience, from many moons ago, you are correct sir.

There are people in the store who have training on how to handle the situation and get paid to take the risk. The general advice to floorstaff is notify them, and let them handle it.

 

[Trippy]

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/press_release/10552890/wal-mart-shrink-on-the-rise

...Flickinger and other analysts say the increase in theft may be tied to Wal-Mart's highly publicized decision last year to no longer prosecute minor cases of shoplifting in order to focus on organized shoplifting rings...​

Wal-Mart also may have been spooked by worries about lawsuits from wrongful death, unlawful imprisonment and other legal issues related to aggressively chasing down shoplifters. In March, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $750,000 to the family of a suspected shoplifter who suffocated to death as loss prevention workers held him down in a parking lot outside a store in Atascocita, Texas. The shoplifter died in August 2005 in a parking lot, according to published reports.​

:roflmao:

 

[Neverfly]

These posts are getting way too long.

By pursuing this, you demonstrate - at least to me, that you still haven't understoof the point being made.

Clarify the point, then. Claiming over and over that I'm not understanding doesn't really clarify anything.

The truth of the matter is you have no evidence to suggest that I am any more of a pacifist than you are, only that I am less ready to injure another than you are.

NO EVIDENCE?
You said your closest folks refer to you that way- that's evidence, Trippy.

But then, people who know me in person generally lable me as being one of the most passive people I know.

Considering I'm a hard nosed mountain man- it's evidence that you are more pacifist than I am.
You're straining at gnats and I suspect that you're doing so in an attempt- as you do later in your post- to claim I'm "putting words in your mouth" in an attempt to make it appear I'm guilty of what I claimed Bells was doing.
If so, this would count as "Intellectual Dishonesty," Trippy, were you doing so intentionally...

You don't have to be a highly trained Akaido master to understand how to block a punch, or for that matter, to understand that under most circumstances responding to a punch with a punch is only going to inflame matters further.

Or knock the other guy out and render him inert...

Bullocks.

How long does it take to say "Can we help you?", or for that matter "Leave the trolley and we'll give you a hand"?

Fleeing with Unpaid For Good.
Probable Cause.
Bold Mine:

No, what was pointed out was that company policy dictates that under some circumstances they are to disengage. Besides, the only thing that is needed for an arrest is the camera footage and the plate number.

What are those circumstances?

I said I was in law enforcement, I didn't say I was a police officer.

Good, because I said Law Enforcement and I did not say you were a cop.

Putting words in my mouth after having spent how many pages complaining about Bells putting words in your mouth? Especially after having a go at me lastnight about it?

No.
I asked you if you thought up three things in less than a second- which is Vastly Different from asking me- repeatedly- across many posts- if I believe security can just off a guy.

What I said was that "In the one or two seconds I had available to me to respond, I assessed three scenarios and their likely outcomes".

Which is not what consciously thinking out options is.
These guys weighed it and made a decision, that after the fact, you disagree with.

Repeating this assertion does nothing to strengthen your argument.

Yes, it does.

Meanwhile, it's more antagonism, all based on a strawman hypothesis, which itself is based on an argument from ignorance.

No, it is based on the News Reports that say:
The man left the store with unpaid goods. He made it to a speebump when they intercepted him. All were Running.
How long does this take?
Not a strawman, Trippy. I did not make that up- that is what is REPORTED. Applying fallacies where they do not apply is Intellectual Dishonesty.

You can't believe that somebody can think "Hey, maybe he's right" then call out "Leave the trolley and let us help"

Man fleeing with Unpaid Merchandise. WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?!
Do you call out to a man running form a bank with a sack of money in his hand, "How can I help you?" No, you do not.
Talk about Strawmen...

Clearly enough time had elapsed for the police to respond to the call-out.

Averages are averages but you have no idea how long it took for these Officers to arrive. Where I live, you see patrol cars sitting outside of Wal-Mart waiting on calls all the time. The officers that responded could have been only a block away when the call came in.

So to argue that they only had seconds available to them seems misleading to me.

Take it up with the authors of the news articles.

I'm no doctor either, but at least I can think of a couple of relevant examples
Epipen.
Anaphylaxis
Angina treated with a vasdilator (eg nitro spray).
My personal favourite (although not relevant aside from illustrating my pont further): Vasa previa.
Vasia previa is my personal favourite because I have had personal experience with it. My wife was diagnosed with it, and we were told that if she started bleeding we had about two minutes to get her to the hospital (they weren't sure if it was her vein, or babies vein). I got woken up at 4am one morning by my wife screaming in panic, and wound up doing 130-150 kph through a 50kph zone because I knew that by the time the ambulance got her to hospital it could be too late, however, at that stage there would still have been a chance for an emergency c-section which might have saved babies life.

I find this interesting because you say here (And I agree with you) that you were breaking the law and speeding. You deemed that necessary, however, by speeding, you put others at risk. You deemed it an acceptable risk.
I'll have to search up the article here, but a man sometime back had his dog hit by a car. He put the dog in the car and rushed him to the vet. Now, I've owned dogs all my life... I understand. Sadly- he was speeding, struck another vehicle, and killed the child inside of it. I do not know if the child was restrained or not.
But the child did die. The man was unaware of this, quickly left contact info and proceeded to the vet. The police went to the vet to make the arrest.
Tragic- very tragic tale and to me, the man did not do anything truly wrong, even though he did do something wrong.
You might want to think about this.

That's your opinion, it's not reality.

No. It's speculation and neither of us know what really happened.

No I didn't. Again, you're being dishonest and putting words in my mouth, the very same things that you have just spent how many pages complaining about Bells doing to you?

Inaccurate.
What I said was very close to what you said. You are trying to nitpick to make an invalid point.
You said, May Appear? Fine.
Bells said, You advocate "inflicting the Death Penalty by rent-a-cops?"
One of those is very far fetched and uncalled for.

You're trying way too hard here, trippy.

so for you to claim this smacks of dishonesty.

Smacks more of not remembering you being all specifical about "contributed" or "could have contributed."
Claiming that's dishonest is you trying too hard to make it appear as though I was being as far fetched as Bells was. It won't work.

If you are planning to continue this tactic- I suggest we stop discussing the issue.

I haven't claimed to know anything, the only thing I have done is point out a possibile explanation

I've done the same...

You claimed it hadn't been answered.
I had previously specifcaly addressed the point, by pointing out a set or circumstances by which it might reasonably occur.
Therefore an answer to your question had previously been provided and your claim that it was unanswered was demonstrably false.

Trippy- speculations are not answers. An answer would be providing information as to what really happened. Does that clarify what I'm thinking?

You're aware that not all medicines require being digested. Some are absorbed directly into the bloodstream through the lungs, or by injection?

Speculation- true.
We must await autopsy.

...regardless of how reaonable they may have been, they may have been mistaken.

None of which even remotely suggests that "we do not detain individuals caught in the act."

Do you understand now?

I have said very similar- that they had probable cause.
Yet, you seem resistant to that. Why?

 

[Neverfly]

Wal-Mart also may have been spooked by worries about lawsuits from wrongful death, unlawful imprisonment and other legal issues related to aggressively chasing down shoplifters. In March, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $750,000 to the family of a suspected shoplifter who suffocated to death as loss prevention workers held him down in a parking lot outside a store in Atascocita, Texas. The shoplifter died in August 2005 in a parking lot, according to published reports.​

:roflmao:

Yeah kinda blew me away too...:bugeye:

 

[Neverfly]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009381123_webyelmcrash25.html

Correction: child had disfiguring injuries but survived.

 

[Asguard]

8 pages for a case where all that is know is "person appeared to be in medical distress, was detained, was in need of medical care when police arrived, died before reaching hospital"

Now as I said earlier this happens WAY to often (police and security need to be better trained that pressure on a face down person can be lethal and increasing that because they are stuggling to breath is tandermount to sticking a plastic bag over there face) but really. Unless there is more released any "judgements" about this are nothing but speculation

 

[Trippy]

These posts are getting way too long.

Clarify the point, then. Claiming over and over that I'm not understanding doesn't really clarify anything.

I've already made it clear, I've also suggested that if you haven't understood it, you're not going to.

NO EVIDENCE?
You said your closest folks refer to you that way- that's evidence, Trippy.

Right. For one reason and another, that's the way they perceive me.

People are like the truth. Every person has three selves.
The self they show to other people.
The self they show themselves.
The true self.

The only thing you can honestly say is that that is how people perceive me. It says nothing about how I might react to a home invasion. You can't even infer anything from what I've said about the recent assault other than I perceived him as being a low level of threat.

As I said, you have no evidence to base that assertion on.

Considering I'm a hard nosed mountain man- it's evidence that you are more pacifist than I am.

No it's not.

What do you know about my background? Nothing. What if I said I've been in more fights than I can count, and have hunted, killed, and prepared my own meat? What of your hypothesis then?

After all, according to you, you have to be trained to a high level of martial arts to be able to defend yourself passively, right?

Maybe I'm just highly trained and confident.

You're straining at gnats and I suspect that you're doing so in an attempt- as you do later in your post- to claim I'm "putting words in your mouth" in an attempt to make it appear I'm guilty of what I claimed Bells was doing.
If so, this would count as "Intellectual Dishonesty," Trippy, were you doing so intentionally...

I'm calling it as I see it. Although I'm not surprised you would come at this.

Or knock the other guy out and render him inert...

Fleeing with Unpaid For Good.
Probable Cause.

:Sigh: I see we've learned nothing from this discussion.

Have you even bothered looking up the relationship between probable cause and mens rea? Or are you relying on CSI: Miami for your legal advice?

What are those circumstances?

They've been made clear in the first 50 posts or so, I feel no compunction to restate them.

Good, because I said Law Enforcement and I did not say you were a cop.

Not explicitly, no.

No.
I asked you if you thought up three things in less than a second- which is Vastly Different from asking me- repeatedly- across many posts- if I believe security can just off a guy.

No, it is precisely what you did.

Which is not what consciously thinking out options is.
These guys weighed it and made a decision, that after the fact, you disagree with.

:sigh:
Now you're telling me what I did or did not do? I'm telling you that I consciously weighed the options and their consequences. You can accept that or go away, I don't really care which.

Yes, it does.

No it doesn't. It's actually a logical fallacy (I forget the name off the top of my head).

No, it is based on the News Reports that say:
The man left the store with unpaid goods. He made it to a speebump when they intercepted him. All were Running.
How long does this take?

Depends on the distance covered, and how much of a head start he had on the employees, as well as how fast everybody involved was moving.

Not a strawman, Trippy. I did not make that up- that is what is REPORTED. Applying fallacies where they do not apply is Intellectual Dishonesty.

It is a strawman. None of the articles are as specific about the timing as you are. Certainly he had enough time to call out "I'm dying!" not once, but twice before being restrained.

Man fleeing with Unpaid Merchandise. WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?!

A man who, according to the police was obviously in medical distress.
A man who, according to a witness may have fell rather than being caught or tackled.
A man who, according to a witness called out twice that he was dying.

Those strike me as three good reasons. Unless you assume guilt on his part to begin with.

Do you call out to a man running form a bank with a sack of money in his hand, "How can I help you?" No, you do not.
Talk about Strawmen...

Reductio ad absurdum.
I might as well ask you if its okay to shoot a four year old for stealing a lollipop, or if you're okay with walmart staff metting out the death penalty for petty crimes (Sorry Bells, couldn't help myself).

Averages are averages but you have no idea how long it took for these Officers to arrive. Where I live, you see patrol cars sitting outside of Wal-Mart waiting on calls all the time. The officers that responded could have been only a block away when the call came in.

:Sigh:
There you ago again, restating part of my point in order to try and contradict me.
"Now, while I don't know enough about the local geography to be be able to say anything definitive..."
If you're going to respond to a point, at least consider the entire point.

I find this interesting because you say here (And I agree with you) that you were breaking the law and speeding. You deemed that necessary, however, by speeding, you put others at risk. You deemed it an acceptable risk.
I'll have to search up the article here, but a man sometime back had his dog hit by a car. He put the dog in the car and rushed him to the vet. Now, I've owned dogs all my life... I understand. Sadly- he was speeding, struck another vehicle, and killed the child inside of it. I do not know if the child was restrained or not.
But the child did die. The man was unaware of this, quickly left contact info and proceeded to the vet. The police went to the vet to make the arrest.
Tragic- very tragic tale and to me, the man did not do anything truly wrong, even though he did do something wrong.
You might want to think about this.

My initial response is to tell you to fuck off.

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more this seems like the approriate response.

I was, and am, aware of the potential consequences of my action, and took what reasonable steps I could to mitigate the risk - I don't care enough to go into details.

I also find the comparison shocking. On the one hand, you're talking about a guy who sped and injured a girl in a car getting his dog to a vet. On the other hand, I'm talking about my sons life being at risk.

There is NOTHING, not one single thing, that you have offered me in your annecdote that I didn't think about at the time. Meanwhile, all it has done is serve to irritate me, because not only does it miss the point that I was making there (that there are medical conditions, and associated medications where minutes and seconds can make the difference between life and death. But it also misses the spirit in which the personal annecdote was offered - a mistake I won't be making again.

Fell free to not respond to this portion, and not address the annecdote further.

Now, with heart medication, it is possible that it can help to alleviate or even prevent a heart attack in time. But it seems more likely that someone in cardiac arrest would demand attention and beg someone to run to his car for him. He was not alone- He had two friends with him.

That's your opinion, it's not reality.

No. It's speculation and neither of us know what really happened.

Say what? This doesn't even make any sense...

I stated that it was your opinion that someone in caridac arrest would "Demand attention" and "Send a friend to a car", and your responding to my statement that it is your opinion with "No, it's speculation"?

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense.

Inaccurate.
What I said was very close to what you said.

No, it wasn't very close to what I said.

What I said implicitly acknowledges that they might not have had a role to play in their death. What you attributed to me leaves no room for that uncertainty. My choice of words was very specific, for precisely that reason. I was deliberatly being pedantic with my wording to acknowledge that uncertainty.

You are trying to nitpick to make an invalid point.

So now insisting on accurate communication is nitpicking to make an invalid point?

Bells said, You advocate "inflicting the Death Penalty by rent-a-cops?"
One of those is very far fetched and uncalled for.

It was still you puting words in my mouth.

You're trying way too hard here, trippy.

Smacks more of not remembering you being all specifical about "contributed" or "could have contributed."

So it's unreasonable to expect you to retain context in a conversation? To expect you to double check what I actually said before attirbuting things to me?

Claiming that's dishonest is you trying too hard to make it appear as though I was being as far fetched as Bells was. It won't work.

No it isn't. It's stating a fact. And you have no grounds for weaseling out of the comparison, because the worst I'm doing is applying your standards to you.

Trippy- speculations are not answers. An answer would be providing information as to what really happened. Does that clarify what I'm thinking?

I didn't claim they were definitive answers, I only stated you had been supplied with a plausable answer. Do you understand the difference?

You have asked a question. I have provided you with one possible answer. You have complained that the question is unanswered. I have pointed out that I have previously given you one possible answer. And now you're complaining that the possible answer isn't the definitive answer, it's speculation?

Do you understand how ridiculous that seems?

I have said very similar- that they had probable cause.
Yet, you seem resistant to that. Why?

The perception of resistance is purely infered on your behalf. It's based on your inability to understand what has been presented to you.

If you think that I'm resitant to the idea that they had probable cause, or, if you think for that matter the presence of absence of probable cause is actually relevant to anything I have actually said (IE that their assumptions about his actions may have been wrong) then you haven't understood anything I have had to say and I am wasting my time and bandwidth trying to explain it further to you.

One might ask why you're so resistant to the idea that they may have acted wrongly inspite of seeming to have probable cause.

Indeed. Have you looked up the relationship between probable cause and mens rea yet?

 

[Neverfly]

Trippy, these posts are too long and frankly, unproductive at this point.
What I saw in that last post was semantics, heavily. Duh?
It really just goes back and forth- it's useless. Some of your responses don't seem to line up with what I'd said and then you said that something that makes sense doesn't make sense.
A guy runs out of the store with unpaid for goods, was either tackled or fell down in the parking lot. Obviously, this took twenty minutes, right? All the mind readers present were supposed to know what was going on and behave in a manner which you believe they should have. Lastly, I put up a news story relating how people may NOT behave ever so perfectly and I get this little gem:

My initial response is to tell you to fuck off.

Really?

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more this seems like the approriate response.

Yeah- we're done here. Go annoy someone else.

 

[Trippy]

Some of your responses don't seem to line up with what I'd said and then you said that something that makes sense doesn't make sense.

Really? Wasn't I just complaining about that with you? That you keep loosing the thread of the conversation and side tracking?

Obviously, this took twenty minutes, right?

Reductio ad absurdum.
I have not said this and nothing I have stated implies this.

All the mind readers present were supposed to know what was going on and behave in a manner which you believe they should have.

Reductio ad absurdum.
Strawman hypothesis.
I have not said this and nothing I have stated implies this.
The only thing I have stated is that they maybe should have listened to him when he said he was dying, rather than assuming it was a plot.

I've also made the point that there actions as floor staff were, in all likelyhood, well outside company policy.

Lastly, I put up a news story relating how people may NOT behave ever so perfectly and I get this little gem:

My initial response is to tell you to fuck off.

Really?

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more this seems like the approriate response.

Yeah- we're done here. Go annoy someone else.

Liar.

You're presenting what I said out of context. The comment was directed at your response to a personal annecdote. I also explained that I found your response irritating, and why.

 

[Neverfly]

Reductio ad absurdum.
I have not said this and nothing I have stated implies this.

Semantics. You kept IMPLYING that I was wrong about the time it takes to run halfway across a parking lot. You did, Trippy. In fact, speaking of claims of what's implied... you went into details, telling about how you handled a home invasion without causing your attacker injury yet you took injury (He entered your garage and assaulted you, you said) and how everyone perceives you as "passive" and then claimed there's NO EVIDENCE for me to perceive you as more pacifist than I am or how you might handle a home invasion. Misleading?

I have not said this and nothing I have stated implies this.
The only thing I have stated is that they maybe should have listened to him when he said he was dying, rather than assuming it was a plot.

They had no real reason to- Plots are far, far more common.

Liar.

Ad Hom attack.

You're presenting what I said out of context. The comment was directed at your response to a personal annecdote. I also explained that I found your response irritating, and why.

You made the comment at all- I did not take it out of context- You made the comment and I directed attention to it. As far as spirit- don't even ASK what kind of "Spirit" I've seen in these long posts.

A hint: Condescending, pretentious, aggressive and I could say much worse. No, I do not trust your motives- not one bit. See above about the whole "pacifist" fracas.
It applied because all that advocacy about being ever so careful- then you admit you put others at risk. I admitted I agreed with your choice. So you can take that comment you made and shove it where the sun don't shine.
As I said, we're done here.

 

[Trippy]

Semantics. You kept IMPLYING that I was wrong about the time it takes to run halfway across a parking lot. You did, Trippy.

No.
It's a reductio ad absurdium leading to a strawman hypothesis.
What I have suggested is that your repeated assertions that there were only seconds involved, and therefore there was no time to accurately assess the situation were in error.

I then went on to support this suggestion by providing evidence that the police response time could reasonably have been on the order of minutes, while acknowledging that I had no knowledge of how close the nearest police officer was.

There's a lot that you're assuming, but isn't actually known.

Were the police called before or after he was first confronted?
Was he first confronted inside the store or outside the store?
If he was confronted while still in the store, as seems to be implied by some of the reports, what was said to him? What did he say to the staff? Was he even coherent when confronted by the staff? What was the alleged shoplifters mental state at the time of the confrontation?

Some of these questions still apply outside the store. Many of your assertions and counter points rely on the assumption that he was coherent and intelligible. What if he wasn't? What if he was muttering over and over again "I've got to get to my car."

In fact, speaking of clai,s of what's implied... you went into details, telling about how you handled a home invasion...

No, I said I was assaulted in my garage. I do not live in my garage.

...without causing your attacker injury...

Correct. I was able to defend myself without injuring him.

...yet you took injury (He entered your garage and assaulted you, you said)...

Correct. Effectively he suckerpunched me, but I defended myself from further injury, without injuring him, and without sustaining further injuries myself.

...and how everyone perceives you as "passive"...

Correct. People who interact with me at a social level perceive me as passive. But then, my social life does not revolve around getting into fisticuffs on a regular basis. Most of my friends have not seen me get angry, and certainly have not seen me loose my cool.

...and then claimed there's NO EVIDENCE for me to perceive you as more pacifist than I am or how you might handle a home invasion.

Correct.

Home invasion is the act of illegally entering a private and occupied dwelling with violent intent for the purpose of committing a crime against the occupants such as robbery, assault, rape, murder, or kidnapping.​

My garage is not an occupied dwelling, nor is it attached to an occupied dwelling. The charge which has been laid by the police is common assault. Not burglary, not home invasion, not aggravated assault.

I live on a leg-in property, my garage is at the end of the pan-handle, and open to the roadside (I have no garage door, consequently the only thing of value in my garage is my car).

Misleading?

No.
What we have here is yet another example of you leaping to the wrong conclusion based on incomplete information.

They had no real reason to- Plots are far, far more common.

Irrelevant, and according to you, and the police, they had every reason to. After all, they had him restrained, and when the police arrived seconds later, he was obviously enough in medical distress that the police felt compelled to call for the ambos.

Ad Hom attack.

I question that assertion. An argumentum ad hominem is where I attack you instead of your argument, for example, if I say "You're wrong because you're a moron." In this instance, yes, I am addressing you directly, but in calling you a liar, I am addressing your argument and calling it a lie. And so I'm not sure that pointing out that you are telling a lie constitutes an ad hominem attack.

You made the comment at all- I did not take it out of context

You took it out of context.

The context being that I took a paragraph out of my response to put the statement into context, by both pointing out that I found your commentary on my personal annecdote inflammatory and why. That's more courtosey than you have shown anyone else in this thread.

You made the comment and I directed attention to it. As far as spirit- don't even ASK what kind of "Spirit" I've seen in these long posts.

A hint: Condescending, pretentious, aggressive and I could say much worse. No, I do not trust your motives- not one bit.

Personal attacks now? (Note the difference between a personal attack an ad hominem argument, it's important).

See above about the whole "pacifist" fracas.

The only 'fracas' was in your assumptions beyond what you had been told. It seems to be a recurring theme here.

It applied because all that advocacy about being ever so careful- then you admit you put others at risk.

There's a subtle difference there, that I'm sure you'll ignore or not recognize. Yes, I advocate being careful, and especially being careful about assumptions (which, if you've been following our discussed is the only thing I have actually suggested). Yes, I engaged in risky behaviour. However I thought through my actions and understood the range of their consequences. For example, I braked to the speed limit well in advance of corners, I chose the straightest route possible that had the least amount of traffic, I slowed to the speed limit to engage major intersections (to name a few steps). However, when push comes to shove, the life of my wife and child were in danger, and I will defy the gods themselves to protect my family.

This is one of the reasons why I did not punch my assailant back.

I admitted I agreed with your choice. So you can take that comment you made and shove it where the sun don't shine.
As I said, we're done here.

And you missed my point, in its entirety, once again.

 

[Neverfly]

And you missed my point, in its entirety, once again.

I believe... that your point is what I said it was.
You are deliberately being misleading, attempting to make it appear as though I am actually doing what I accused Bells of doing.

Which, if so, is disturbing intellectual dishonesty.